University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

YAF 'War—Mongers'

I found the YAF statement in
last Friday's issue of the CD quite
astounding. They attacked the
Vietnam Moratorium as "morally
reprehensible." Before that statement
joins many of the other
moronic utterances of YAF, it
should be analyzed so that we can
see that it is among the worst.

YAF, or at least the group led
by John Kwapisz, believes the
Moratorium is morally reprehensible.
Have they stopped to think
what it is? The Moratorium stands
for an end to the war in Vietnam.
The war stands for the slaughtering
of Vietnamese peasants, and the
mindless manipulations of the Pentagon
to destroy the lives of
American men between the ages of
18 and 35.

If this group considers the
Moratorium to be morally reprehensible,
then they must consider
all of the above to be morally
commendable. If this is the case,
then I will leave this group of
barbaric, power-hungry war-mongers
to their personal pursuits of
destruction, but I will ask that they
please not misuse the English
language to the point of calling
themselves young Americans for
"freedom."

Mr. Kwapisz, chairman of the
local chapter of Young Americans
for Freedom, claims that the
Moratorium has as its "net intent
and effect" to meet the "North
Vietnamese demand for immediate
and unilateral withdrawal of all
American forces..." This is only
partially correct. Many others (the
actual young Americans for freedom)
also demand a unilateral and
immediate withdrawal. All freedom-oriented
- youth realize the
necessity to end the genocidal
campaign that the politicians and
their military cohorts have waged
against the people of both Vietnams.

Mr. Kwapisz continues by saying
that such a withdrawal would have
"no regard for the fate of 15
million Vietnamese." We, the real
young Americans for freedom, hold
a contrary view. We demand immediate
and complete withdrawal
precisely because we do have a
regard for the Vietnamese people.
Only through a policy of U.S
non-intervention can the struggle
between the Vietnamese people and
the tyrannical South Vietnamese
government be brought to an end;
an end that hopefully will result in
the liberation of the Vietnamese
people from western rule and
manipulation.

Mr. Kwapisz and his friends have
now revealed to us what we have
known all along — that the F in
YAF stands not for freedom, but
for fascism. It is the responsibility,
therefore, of the member of the
academic community to answer the
YAF by dedicating themselves to
the greatest cause of all-freedom
and peace for all men — and to the
Moratorium, one part of this
struggle!

A few thoughts on an occurrence
at the Lambeth Field Concert.
A relaxed and happy scene
no? Sunny summer afternoon. Blue
sky. Green grass. Peaceful crowd.
Aquarian perhaps.

But let us not forget our place.
This is the University of Virginia,
time-warped bastion of affluence
and alcoholism. And there does
seem to be some sort of metaphysical
necessity that all public events
be marred by the drunken excesses
of one's fellow Wahoos.

Thus, in fulfillment of the
Tradition, during the performance
of an all-black band, two Kleen-Kuts
clad in official uniform of
Arrow shirt and regimental tie
stagger to their feet in the middle
of the audience to proudly unfurl,
yes, the Confederate flag, which
they flaunt at the black men on
stage.

Now, y'all, what does this
mean? Was it a completely trivial
act? Boys will be boys, Wahoo wah,
etc.? Or was it a particularly blatant
symbol of racial hatred? Does it
perhaps "reflect discredit upon the
University?" If it does, should the
Judiciary Committee look into it?
After all, what is the difference
between waving the Confederate
flag at blacks and hanging one's
bare ass out the window of a car at
old ladies?

Such a pleasant concert though
— till human voices wake us and we
drown.

We feel that a reply to Mr. Fry's
comments on coeducation is indeed
in order. As members of the fairer
sex on the Grounds, we would like
to congratulate Mr. Fry on being
one of the first males to realize that
females are equal to, or superior to
males. Should this one characteristic,
though, be the prime reason
why females are deprived of an
excellent education? We think not
— rather, we feel that it is the last
effort by egotistical, insecure males
to hold on to their "supremacy."

We believe that the accusation
that "this is a man's society" is an
1800 vintage anachronism. Perhaps
Mr. Fry and others like him really
do not want to admit that the time
has long since come for women to
expect and demand the educational
opportunities provided by the
"greatest universities." Mr. Fry, do
you feel threatened "academically
and possibly politically?" Perhaps if
more males were challenged in this
manner it would be to the educational
advantages of both sexes.

Co-education is a reality and if it
is a reality that you fear then you
have lost the broad minded attitudes
that befits a gentleman and a
scholar.

I feel that your article "On
Rush" is an unfair representation of
the fraternity system. Your statements
lack perspective and understanding.
A fraternity is a group of
people. As the people change, so
does the fraternity. The University
is in a state of change and the
fraternities will have to recognize
this or be phased out. Also, the
ideal of brotherhood merits more
than sarcasm. One can learn as
much as one chooses to learn from
a fraternity. It is a free choice.

Your editorial on the University
fraternity system correctly and
unequivocally states the obvious
advantages and disadvantages of
that system. However, your conclusion
puts the proverbial cart
before the horse. The death of the
Greek system, be it good or bad,
cannot come before a change in the
basic feelings prevalent at the
University. Not until we begin to
approach Jefferson's concept of the
"academical village" - entailing
warmth, understanding, and dedication
— will the stage be rightly set
for the end of the fraternity
system; until then, that system is
indeed functional. The call must be
for a change in people, not systems.

Your newspaper has effectively
stereotyped all fraternities as
closed, bigoted, party houses. As
such they are not worth preserving,
an "anachronism" that first-year
men should destroy by not rushing.
If they do not rush, then the
fraternity, and all its bigoted ways,
will die. It's that simple.

But, is every fraternity the same,
does every fraternity force its
pledges to join only accepted
activities, wear the coat and tie,
drink, and raise hell? Does every
fraternity contain stereotyped
members of one belief? Or is it
made up of individuals with different
ideas, closed-and open minds?

Where do you have the right to
play God and decide that a
first-year man should not go
through rush and find out for
himself if what you have preached
is correct?

Yes, there are evils in the
system. Sure there is a ball system,
but are all fraternity men so small
as to decide on a person's merit by
the way he wears his hair or tie? Or
might a liberal decide to change his
fraternity by black balling a bigot?
Ostracism can work both ways.

Though it may sound like it, I
am not a fraternity man. I pledged
and depledged for my own personal
reasons. I ill not be a fraternity
man, yet I feel that fraternities have
merit and I am glad I had the
experience to decide for myself.

Rush, first-year men. Think for
yourselves. There are thirty-three
fraternities, no two are alike,
because a fraternity is not a house,
but a group of individuals. If you
don't like what you see don't
pledge, but at least afford yourself
the opportunity to decide for
yourself.